Manhunter on DVD (1986)

Shame i saw red dragon first

sakuraba1982 from Dover , 08/08/2007

This film is not bad by any means but I see anthony hopkins as Lector now and all others will fail in this role. I just feel that the re-make is just better all round

Read all reviews

Remakes Acts Circles Around This

Millsey from Hastings [Highly rated reviewer] , 16/12/2006

God, I don't think you really appriciate Ed Norton and Anthony Hopkins until you watch this. I love both those actors, but didn't quite realise how much better they were in these roles. I often hear people say the original is better, but i'm starting to think that people just say that about any original, because they are stuck in their ways. The acting at times is laughable, and eerie.......NO!, Please do yourselves a favour and watch the Remake 'Red Dragon' as that is a good film, this on the other hand isn't fit to be used as a drinks coaster!

I just wish there was a lower rating that I could give then 1 star.

Read all reviews

Excellent

A customer from England , 21/09/2004

The Original Hannibal Lecter film - remade as Red Dragon.

This is 100% better than Red Dragon,

William L Petersen and Brian Cox give musch stronger and believable performances than Edward Norton and Anthony Hopkins.

A must to view.

Read all reviews

Original Hannibal!

Bob Lampon from London, England , 29/07/2004

A most underrated film from 1986 but in my opinion an excellent introduction to Hannibal Lector and his evil.

Brain Cox plays Hannibal and he's at times much scarier and a stronger presence than Hopkins. William Peterson (CSI's Grissom) is great in the lead as the troubled detective on the case of a very nasty and totally convincing serial killer.

Check this out before the inevitable re-make.

Read all reviews

The Beginnings Of Hannibal Lecter

Gorelord from East Sussex , 10/11/2003

How many times have we heard "The film isn't as good as the book"? Let's face it. What film IS?! Red Dragon was a masterpiece and so is Manhunter.

To appreciate that there are two issues. Firstly, the film was created in 1986. It's stylised and looks slightly dated. The soundtrack is excellent but very 1980's. Secondly, there is way too much information that made the book so enthralling to squeeze into 2 hours.

The cinematography is breathtaking. The choice of locations was also very deliberate. The scene where Will is running out of the building after speaking to Hannibal Lecter. They chose a building with a long spiral ramp down. The ramp is white, clinical. Running down the ramp is like those dreams where the bad man is chasing you and you can't get away. Will runs his heart out but doesn't get very far.

I agree that Cox plays a different Lecter but then the book wasn't about Lecter. There was some mention made but Lecter in this film is very much a Cameo appearance. The way in which Will goes about catching the killer is every bit as clever as Starling's methods, if not more so. In addition, we are treated to the thoughts, the inner monologue, the frustration and triumph of a hunter.

Make no mistake, if you expect an up-to-date movie as good in every respect as the book, you'll be disappointed. If you're sensible and expect nothing more than 2 hours quality entertainment you'll enjoy this one.

Read all highest rated reviews

Excellent policier-cum-thriller

Geedee241 from Corwen , 10/04/2005

I?ve never read the source books, so can only comment on the film on its own merits; but then it has plenty. And only one flaw.

Peterson is great as the FBI profiler of the days before that was a clich?d term. He really does get into the minds of his targets, here the ?toothfairy?, a slaughterer of whole families on the night of the full moon.

The strength of the film lies, firstly, in Graham?s (Petersons) modus operandi; literally thinking himself into the role of the killer. When he takes the case, he?s talking of the killer in the third person, later he musing about him in the second person, and finally when he visits the latest crime scene, he?s murmuring into his voice recorder ?I climb the stairs?.?. Peterson makes Graham believable as the man who glimpse the dark side of a psychopath?s mind whilst managing, just, to avoid falling into the abyss himself.

The villain, too is not (as I?ve seen so often written) the ?epitome of evil?. He?s deeply flawed, yes, yet clearly human, and Tom Noonhan plays him sufficiently sympathetically for us to be rooting for him to find redemption in the true love of blind woman. Sadly, though he tries, he just can?t connect with another human being in any real sense; his tragedy is that he knows he?s all mixed up, yet is powerless to change himself.

Cox is great as Lector, the psychopath to whom Graham turns for insight; for my money Hopkins played the same role too creepy, too scary. Cox gets it right ? totally normal on the outside, polite, urbane, charming. Those are the attributes that enabled Lector to slaughter without detection for so long. It?s the knowing with hindsight what the man?s capable of, behind the faultless facade, that makes the man so frightening. Who coined the phrase ?the ordinariness of evil!??. If you can see it coming you?ve a chance to protect yourself??

The only flaw is the ending. Over-conventional, over violent, it throws away the subtleties of the pursuit and of the characters. Still, it remains a far better film than most of its genre, well paced with the slow progress of the case punctuated by moments of high drama and crisis; it?s a good film by almost any standards.

Read all highest rated reviews